Las Vegas Development Group, LLC v. 2014-3 IH Equity Owner, LP et al

Filing 62

ORDER granting 45 Motion to Lift Stay of Case; denying 61 Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/3/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
LAS VEGAS DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
v.
13
2014-3 IH EQUITY OWNER, LP, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-00917-GMN-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 45)

16

Pending before the Court is Defendant Bank of America’s motion to stay discovery pending

17

resolution of its motion to dismiss. Docket No. 45; see also Docket Nos. 47, 52 (joinders).1 Plaintiff

18

filed a response, which does not contest the relief sought. See Docket No. 54 (“Plaintiff does not oppose

19

the entry of a stay”). Moreover, the Court agrees that a stay of discovery is appropriate in this case

20

pending resolution of Defendant’s motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294

21

F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013) (outlining standards).

22

discovery is hereby GRANTED. In the event resolution of the motion to dismiss does not result in the

23

termination of this case, the parties shall file a joint proposed discovery plan within 14 days of the

24

issuance of the order resolving that motion. The parties’ recently filed discovery plan (Docket No. 61)

25

is DENIED without prejudice.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to stay

26
1

27
28

The motion is mislabeled as a motion to partially lift the stay in this matter. The stay was already
lifted. See Docket No. 44. The motion actually seeks a stay of discovery pending resolution of the motion
to dismiss. Id. at 3-4.

1

In its response, Plaintiff seeks to stay the entire case (including of the resolution of the motion

2

to dismiss). See Docket No. 54 at 7-9. A responsive brief is not a vehicle to seek relief. If Plaintiff

3

seeks an order staying the entire case, it must file a proper motion seeking such relief. See Local Rule

4

7-2(a). The Court does not opine herein as to the merits of such a request.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

DATED: April 3, 2018

7
8

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2